With a crazy philosophy of running 2-3 mile long trains, you inevitably will have even more equipment failures. Having extra crew doesn't help that very much.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm With a crazy philosophy of running 2-3 mile long trains, you inevitably will have even more equipment failures. Having extra crew doesn't help that very much.
What is your 'optimum' train size? What other investments must be undertaken to support that size train? Will that train size be more 'profitable' than what is being done today?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
It is said that two heads are better than one. In this case both crew members missed the signal indication, BUT I am sure that there have been numerous unreported cases where one or both crew members saw danger and stopped the train. Do you really think the idea oa one man crew is a good idea? I do not.
BaltACD schlimm With a crazy philosophy of running 2-3 mile long trains, you inevitably will have even more equipment failures. Having extra crew doesn't help that very much. What is your 'optimum' train size? What other investments must be undertaken to support that size train? Will that train size be more 'profitable' than what is being done today?
I do not know. I do know that trains that long (to reduce labor), with some cars with very heavy lading have many negative consequences. 1. Track damage. 2. Inadequate plant in terms of sidings, terminal facilities, resulting in delays. 3. Equipment failures: drawbars pulled, broken couplers, wheel failures all resulting in more delays. The final product is a railroad that can only competively handle slow, drag freights of one low-margin bulk commodity (coal, oil, ethanol, grain) or product such as autoracks point to point with no reliable schedule. You keep fading business at the expense of growing with faster, scheduled higher margin commodities delivered to more places. It's a case of a short-sighted vision.
caldreamer It is said that two heads are better than one. In this case both crew members missed the signal indication, BUT I am sure that there have been numerous unreported cases where one or both crew members saw danger and stopped the train. Do you really think the idea oa one man crew is a good idea? I do not.
It's getting tired hearing the same old song about the railroads not wanting ECP. What they don't want is a mandate for something has some benefits, but so far, not enough to go for a wholesale outfitting of equipment. Especially when it isn't a solution to the problem being used to require the mandate.
Plain and simple, the railroads are going to save money out of one pocket. It may cost them as much or more out of others, but they will experience a savings in one pocket. A little spin and they can explain away any other expenses.
There are other things the railroad, and I assume other large corporations in any industry work the same way, has invested in expecting large savings that never develope. Even though they may not experience the large savings, they do experience some savings. Even if it's pennies on the dollar. Therefore, that particular investment will be deemed a rousing success beyond their wildest expectations.
It' all about the numbers, after they have been spinned for Wall Street.
Jeff
The industry isn't pushing too hard for one person crews.. it's on the backburner somewhere for sure, but its not something of pressing importance right now. In light of the looming PTC deadline the very LAST thing they want to do right now is to pick a fight with their rank and file. They need all hands on deck to deal with PTC... PTC plus an across the board reduction in crew size would be a really really dumb move.
I think so.. there's also a lot of talk about sending people to Mars. It's going to happen, but I don't think its on anyone's to do list right now. Train crew size may be a subject that's being discussed in the trade media, but I highly doubt its top of mind among senior managers in the industry.. not now with so many other issues like PTC that need to be put to bed first. Eventually, as I stated earlier, AI will come into play, and everything will change for all of us.. Crew size may indeed be a moot point by then as there may not be any human crew required. That small 3 pound mass between our ears can do alot.. there's no reason to believe those same functions can't be replicated or even improved upon via machine. But that's still way out in the future.. at least a couple of years.
Euclid Is this thread just an academic discussion about the pros and cons of crew size without any connection to the actual practice?
This isn't the "Railway Age" forums and given that we are a group made up primarily of railfans debating the issue then Yes, it is..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1 Euclid Is this thread just an academic discussion about the pros and cons of crew size without any connection to the actual practice? This isn't the "Railway Age" forums and given that we are a group made up primarily of railfans debating the issue then Yes, it is..
well, the thread started out as a discussion of the practical pros and cons of crew size as being advocated by the industry management versus the crewmembers. It was not just about railfans discussing the pros and cons with each other. The discussion was a debate among fans and employees about the two opposing positions held by the management versus crewmembers.
EuclidThe discussion was a debate among fans and employees about the two opposing positions held by the management versus crewmembers.
Don't forget about the highly paid executives and "contribute nothing to the productive work flow" stockholders who hope to pocket the conductor's salary, once implemented.
Ulrich The industry isn't pushing too hard for one person crews.. it's on the backburner somewhere for sure, but its not something of pressing importance right now. In light of the looming PTC deadline the very LAST thing they want to do right now is to pick a fight with their rank and file. They need all hands on deck to deal with PTC... PTC plus an across the board reduction in crew size would be a really really dumb move.
My prediction. (I'm trying hard not to inject politics, but it really is germane to the discussion.) If the White House is held by, and both houses of Congress have a majority of those belonging to the party that is considered more pro-business than the other, you will see the issue forced. It will also not just be on lines equipped with PTC, but on all lines.
Once that political climate is reached, the major carriers will feel that they have the upper hand when the next contracts come up. They will figure that they either will get the affected union to accept a contract willingly or force it's acceptance through the use of a Presidential Emergency Board. They will be assuming that a pro-business President will pick members of the PEB that will be more partial towards the companies' way of thinking.
They have broached the idea a few times in the past but conditions weren't condusive to pursue it.
jeffhergert Ulrich The industry isn't pushing too hard for one person crews.. it's on the backburner somewhere for sure, but its not something of pressing importance right now. In light of the looming PTC deadline the very LAST thing they want to do right now is to pick a fight with their rank and file. They need all hands on deck to deal with PTC... PTC plus an across the board reduction in crew size would be a really really dumb move. My prediction. (I'm trying hard not to inject politics, but it really is germane to the discussion.) If the White House is held by, and both houses of Congress have a majority of those belonging to the party that is considered more pro-business than the other, you will see the issue forced. It will also not just be on lines equipped with PTC, but on all lines. Once that political climate is reached, the major carriers will feel that they have the upper hand when the next contracts come up. They will figure that they either will get the affected union to accept a contract willingly or force it's acceptance through the use of a Presidential Emergency Board. They will be assuming that a pro-business President will pick members of the PEB that will be more partial towards the companies' way of thinking. They have broached the idea a few times in the past but conditions weren't condusive to pursue it. Jeff
Jeff: In the unlikely event that both Houses and POTUS were captured by that group, union members in all jobs should be on guard. The agenda pushed by the Koch Bros. through their purchased minions such as Scott Walker or pushed independently by a Bruce Rauner is to destroy collective bargaining rights.
Aw, Schlimm!
First, I don't buy the cuteness of you Democrats in thinking you're avoiding being "political" by not naming party names.
Second, the Koch Bros. and their "minions" haven't been notoriously successful in the last two presidential cycles. Whereas you have bought-and-paid-for minorities, soccer moms and other low-information voters going for you.
Railroad crews are the least of the stakes we have in the 2016 elections.
For the record, I'm an Independent. That's as far as I can go on that subject.
Well Fred, you are talking apples and oranges. Politicians of both parties are bought and sold every day and have been since the founding of the republic. Your comparison is just fact-deprived rhetoric with no evidence of validity and pretty insulting to soccer moms.
[From the Pew Research Center some actual facts]: "Ds lead by 22 points (57%-35%) in leaned party identification among adults with post-graduate degrees. The The Ds’ edge is narrower among those with college degrees or some post-graduate experience (49%-42%), and those with less education (47%-39%). Across all educational categories, women are more likely than men to affiliate with the D Party or lean D. "
The anti-union agenda of the other party is also pretty clear to anyone who notices WI politics.
The American political system is the best that money can buy.
It is bought and sold daily at all levels.
Jeff, I assure you that there are some fairly sensible Republicans that are as concerned with safety as any political Democrat, and while I think it is a possibility that we will have a Republican President, House, and Senate, there will be enough safety-minded Republicans who will join with Democrats to prefent a uniform industry-wide one-man result.
schlimm Well Fred, you are talking apples and oranges. Politicians of both parties are bought and sold every day and have been since the founding of the republic. Your comparison is just fact-deprived rhetoric with no evidence of validity and pretty insulting to soccer moms.
daveklepper ...assure you that there are some fairly sensible Republicans that are as concerned with safety as any political Democrat,
I would opine that as individuals, most politicians would be seen as sane, rational people. It's when you encounter the "mob" mentality (ie, acting as a bloc) that you run into the insanity that is party politics.
While there's a lot to be said for having who voted how known to their constituents, I would suggest that if votes on the House and Senate floor were secret, a good many would come out very differently from how they do now.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68I would opine that as individuals, most politicians would be seen as sane, rational people. It's when you encounter the "mob" mentality (ie, acting as a bloc) that you run into the insanity that is party politics. While there's a lot to be said for having who voted how known to their constituents, I would suggest that if votes on the House and Senate floor were secret, a good many would come out very differently from how they do now.
Try listening to some of the speeches by individuals in the House or Senate on C-Span for two days and check back. What we need is more transparency and accountability by members, not less, particularly the sources of all "donations." This became much more of a problem since the Citizens United decision.
schlimm What we need is more transparency and accountability by members, not less, particularly the sources of all "donations.
Perhaps transparency should start in the White House with both current and past presidents and their wives. Possibly, others would follow suit.
Norm
Norm48327 schlimm What we need is more transparency and accountability by members, not less, particularly the sources of all "donations. Perhaps transparency should start in the White House with both current and past presidents and their wives. Possibly, others would follow suit.
schlimmYes. It should include a divulging of campaign donations, speaking fees, donations to candidate sponsored foundations and trusts, etc. as a requirement for all elected politicians (and their immediate families) at all levels: federal, state and local. Not voluntary.
To say nothing of real-estate shenanigans intended to maximize the 'take' from the Government, especially after they leave 'public life'...
I am tempted to modify what you said slightly. Make it voluntary at first, then non-voluntary with oversight. Then see how the scope and nature of the 'voluntary' disclosures differs from what turns out to be the truth. And act accordingly...
schlimmTry listening to some of the speeches by individuals in the House or Senate on C-Span for two days and check back. What we need is more transparency and accountability by members, not less, particularly the sources of all "donations." This became much more of a problem since the Citizens United decision.
I agree. My point is that the individual members these days need to be active in the "you scratch my back" give and take in order to survive. If they don't support the party line, regardless of how they (or their constituents) actually feel on a given matter, they will receive no support for any items they may propose.
In many ways, what is really needed is for party politics, as they currently exist, to be gone. Such politics have largely done away with political give and take, where a politician would dicker with other politicians on an individual basis, garnering support. And where a politician would come any where near voting the sentiments of his/her constituents.
Today, politicians vote the party line. Period. Quite a deal is made of any vote where politicians "cross over" and vote against the party line. What you see on C-SPAN is simply politicians trying to convince their fellow party members that they are part of the group...
Just a quiet night - The evening kicks off with a Southbound, running for the law after spending 2 1/2 hours replacing a broken knuckle. They didn't make destination and were instructed to secure the train and wait for their recrew. When making the 'securement test' with the brakes released, the rear of the train ran back and guess what? Broke another kncukle 78 cars from the engines. Fun times for the recrew to replace the broken knuckle and get the train back together.Then a rack train, hauling 122 empty autoracks over the mountain with a helper, reports that after the helper cut off from the train that they can't maintain proper air pressure on the rear of the train. Inspection by both the train and helper crews finds a broken flexible trainline and the car must be set off, with securing and releasing brakes from the various segments of the train the task is accomplished in 4 1/2 hours.A 9000 foot merchandise train goes into emergency on the highest and longest bridge on the division on signle track. Broken knuckle 72 cars from the engines, with priority trains from both directions waiting for the trains passge. A little over 3 hours later the single track is free.The rack train that had set out the bad order traveled another 18 miles and went into emergency, on single track. Inspection revealed a broken knuckle 20 cars from the engines, after that was replaced in a hour and 30 minutes it revealed that there was more trouble in the train, another broken knuckle 42 cars deep. Train went on law on single main with 3 Westbounds and 2 Eastbounds waiting to use single track.Relief arrived - I transferred and went home!
Great account, Balt, reminding us of problems inherent in a technology we are used to bragging up for its efficiency (when everything works!).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.